the real rating of the master!

okey :) so i know the rating at the site is totaly off and has nothing to do with the real rating of a person (since kasparov at his highst state was 2850 and her we have players "over" that rating).

my qustion is does any one have a idea what is  the real rating of the top players here at chess.com ( im talking about players with 2900) what is there real rating according to real standerts. i mean is it 2300-2450? or nower neer it?

i know a lot of players hear are asking them selvs this qustion so any one who realy knows the answer it will be grate! thanks:) 

well if they are honest 2900 players (wonders...) then the "general rule" is to take 300 away and then esitimate that as their OTB rating.  however...

lots of engine use goes on, especially in correspondence. i don't understand this at all, but hey, who am i, right?  if i wanted to play fritz or shredder, i would just play them, i have them all on my computer. however, if i want a correspondence game, against a human, that's what i'm hoping to get lol.  anywhere but correspondence it's called "cheating". in correspondence, it's called "assistance". yea, right.

anyhow, in reality, my guess would be that a 2900 player (actual, not assisted) would probably play at around the 2300-2400 level OTB.  probably.  :)

lol ''assistance'' :)

any way so we dont have here a player who is 2500+ ?

what whould be the actual difrence in the game play between a 2300-2400 (real rating) to a 2500+ (real rating)?

and secondly are u sure a player thats here 2900 ( with out assistance lol) is a2400 max in real? :)

A brief search in the titled players list could give you a clue.

hhhmmmmmm

Their rating on this site is "real" if they are honest players. However, it does not correspond to their OTB ratings, just as USCF ratings do not correspond to FIDE ratings, and just as the English Chess Federation has ratings that no one understands.

The current #1 on chess.com : http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=15000052

He is an FM with a current FIDE rating of 2139 and if you look at his rating progress chart he has been falling like a rock recently. It makes me wonder why GM Julio_Becerra isnt well over 3000 here ?!

There are currently 4 over 2900 here and the other 3 give no personal info so no way to look em up, but its a safe bet that all over 2900 here are using a strong program in their games.

Some will say I am just paranoid and to you I say you are gullible. 

thanks for all the comments.

i have to agree the usege of programs at chess.com  totalythrows off the true rating of the players. a player using a program isnt just afecting his own rating, he's afecting every players rating who played agenst him as well.

now lets say ther is a 2900 that is cheating he playes agenst a nm and wins so the rating of the nm will decrease. now the nm won 5 players with lets say a 2400. those players instead of loosing agenst a 2900 as the nm should be at this web site instead the nm has a 2650 so the players agenst him lpst more points then they were sopost to ( about 10 instead of 1). this affects every ones rating like a roling snow ball and makes all the ratings not close to the real rating.

a nother factor is the time out. a player winning as a resolt of a time out (or loosing) has a rating that is not only based on how well they play and as above the snow ball starts roling affecting every one playing agenst him and any one who played agenst those players who where affected by the time out.

lol that was long and complicated :)

any way my qustion still remains- does any one know what is the real rating of the top players here at chess.com assuming they are not using a program?

the reson im asking is because i am curious to know how well does a player like kasparov play comperd to the top players here. kasparov was a 2850 and there are many uge players with a rating 2600-2800. if we will know the real rating of the top players here at chess.com ( if they are 2200-2400 or 2500+ ) we will be able ,by compering ower selvs to them to know where we stand comperd to the real chompions and what is ower chance to become a  high rated player .

so does any one know the answer to how good are the leaders here  (2200-2400 or 2500+)  

and secondly and most important what whould be the actual difrence in the game play between a2300-2400 player to a 2500+ (bringing a game between those 2 kinde of players or between a good player here to a real chompion 2600+ may give as the answer :)

This may not really be the case. I don't see any difference between a Time out and blundering into a mate in 1. If a player loses frequently because of time-outs, his/her rating will reflect it, exactly the same way the rating of a player who frequently makes game losing blunders reflects their blunder rate.

 your right if were talking about a profesional game but most of us play here chess for fun fiting it in ower schedual so time outs here arent a resolt of thinking slowly, it is just a resolt of peole having more to life then just making the game time at chess.com . therfor the person loosing isnt thinjking slower and isnt loosing because of being less good he just has other things to do. 

that affects the rating sistem badly 

that does NOT affect the rating system badly, because it's not the players that are rated, it's the players' performance that are rated. it makes all the difference.

 true! exactly! it shows how well the player fits the time of the chess games in tohis life instead of just how well he thinks. if the loose is because of thinking to slowly i whould agree but here the rating of the players a lot of times is affected by people just not coming back on time loosing because they didnt fit chess in to there schedual nothing to do with thinking slowly fast or fiting the moves in to the time just plane not coming back!! to the game

But isn't there a flaw in that reasoning? Is "how well a player thinks" seperable from "how well the player fits the time of the chess games into his life?". I mean, it's all about the time & effort you put in your game.

Someone with a busy life may as well blitz the moves and make much more blunders, and as I mentioned before, they aren't any different than time outs in my view. I mean, I'm sure if I had the time and dedication to force myself to think 30 minutes before every single move, I wouldn't have drawn a completely won ending, or get my queen trapped. But then, perhaps my opponent wouldn't hang those pawns either, so I wouldn't be able to win anyway.

So that's life, and you can't mess around with the balance of life.

that is not true sorry.

if you and your opponent whould have both thoght longer the beter player whould have seen more then is opponent so your clame as for not thinking enough is not realy true. as for the time issue it dosnt matter if its a mater of handeling and manneging your time in life, still winning on time cause of needing to go to work dosnt make u a less good player so if u lost on time your rating went down for no reson and afected the rating sistem as i said above like a snow ball :)

any way back to the qustion:

so does any one know the answer to how good are the leaders here  (2200-2400 or 2500+)  

and secondly and most important what whould be the actual difrence in the game play between a2300-2400 player to a 2500+ (bringing a game between those 2 kinde of players or between a good player here to a real chompion 2600+ may give as the answer :)

 lol are u sure? why cant there be a player who is good enough to win almost always? thats  why im asking lets say they are not using programs how good do you need to be to win like that?

2600+ ? or less will also win here like that. dont forget we are not all masters here so it makes the wins easier for a master player

I was about 2400 Fide about 10 years ago, (2390) but I am perhaps 100 points weaker these days. It seems that nearly every untitled player on a free account over 2500 is just a CPU. I have become discouraged playing in any team matches or games vs. non premium account or untitled players as it always seems I am just playing Rybka or Fritz. It is fairly easy to spot these players as they play deep, often ugly looking, ingenious moves. It is probably impossible to control this situation and maybe computers should just be allowed. I know I feel very uncomfortable as soon as I realize my opponent is of silicon origin and the temptation to cheat as well surfaces (an eye for an eye). It’s a shame because chess.com is a great site with awesome tools (tactics trainer is outstanding). But correspondence play above 2500 is futile in my opinion if you play against free accounts or untitled players.

so if they are playing with fritz or rybka that maens they are actualy playing a level of 2900-3000 depending on the version of the program... wow that is a problam wy dont chess.com take care of it?

they try to.

In order to get above 2600, one must defeat along the way many programs. So the answer to your question is the following: if the top players here were not be cheaters, they could easily outplay even the strongest GM's in the world. Ussually they make zero mistakes in hundreds of games and compared to them even the correspondence champions from the past look like kinderdargen kids. In reality however the top players here did not even hear of "ELO" and their OTB playing strength is well below 2000.

Is there a top rated players list? I couldn't find it.